Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: John Camp on May 04, 2020, 05:01:26 pm
-
For most people, medical insurance is just that -- insurance against an unlikely event, the need for expensive medical care. But what happens when medical insurance has to start paying out for expected events, like the corona virus. Most people get through the virus without needing hospitalizations, but a pretty solid percentage do need a hospital, or at least medical care. Even though medical insurance is supposedly mandatory in the US, it's clear that hundreds of thousands of people don't have it and a significant portion of those will need hospital career which they can't afford. Do you think his pandemic will push Americans closer to a universal Medicare?
-
For most people, medical insurance is just that -- insurance against an unlikely event, the need for expensive medical care. But what happens when medical insurance has to start paying out for expected events, like the corona virus. Most people get through the virus without needing hospitalizations, but a pretty solid percentage do need a hospital, or at least medical care. Even though medical insurance is supposedly mandatory in the US, it's clear that hundreds of thousands of people don't have it and a significant portion of those will need hospital career which they can't afford. Do you think his pandemic will push Americans closer to a universal Medicare?
With luck, some good will come out of the bad. But minds are often set in stone and common sense fails to prevail.
-
you think his pandemic will push Americans closer to a universal Medicare?
Yes.
-
Here it is, never let a good crisis go to waste right!
Let’s use this as a way to completely rewrite the relationship with government but no thanks John.
One of the reasons I want get out of this lockdown so big government tyrants can’t do this. Not saying you’re a tyrant although you are fight tooth and nail to keep this lock down going.
-
Have people been turned down by hospitals for medical care for Covid 19? I haven't heard that.
-
Have people been turned down by hospitals for medical care for Covid 19? I haven't heard that.
Not for C19, but for myriad of other ailments, because they are closed for everything except C19.
-
Here it is, never let a good crisis go to waste right!
Let’s use this as a way to completely rewrite the relationship with government but no thanks John.
One of the reasons I want get out of this lockdown so big government tyrants can’t do this. Not saying you’re a tyrant although you are fight tooth and nail to keep this lock down going.
"But minds are often set in stone and common sense fails to prevail."
Guess I knew you were coming...
;-)
-
"But minds are often set in stone and common sense fails to prevail."
Guess I knew you were coming...
;-)
Government run anything does not work nearly as good as privately run. The reason is simple, politics. Politicians make decision on who should run something or what should be done based on getting re-elected, not on the overall good of the institution.
Also, last I checked, Italy has government run healthcare and they were not saved from it. We, though, with the largest amount of ICU beds per capita, faired rather well.
-
1. Government run anything does not work nearly as good as privately run. The reason is simple, politics. Politicians make decision on who should run something or what should be done based on getting re-elected, not on the overall good of the institution.
2, Also, last I checked, Italy has government run healthcare and they were not saved from it. We, though, with the largest amount of ICU beds per capita, faired rather well.
1. Armies? Prison systems? The list of profit-before-value enterprises is endless.
2. No system saved any country from Corinna.
-
Government run anything does not work nearly as good as privately run.
In my 40 years of working, I spent 35 in the private sector and just under 5 in the public sector. When I hear people say that private companies are run better, I just laugh out loud. I am sure some are run well though, don't get me wrong. And yes, there are lots of things governments should not be involved in.
But making the direct comparison, in general, is a crock since governments usually get involved in people's lives where you have market failures, so you're almost always comparing apples to oranges anyway. It's relatively easy to count widgets out the door, how do you measure how well a health care system is running, by the number cured, by the number who don't get sick, something else? In the case of medical delivery, the best of US heath care is probably as good as it can be, but every comparison I've ever heard or read about shows that American health care is the most expensive among developed countries.
The comparison with what happened in Italy is nonsense and you know it. The medical system was overwhelmed but not because of its own internal ("socialist") failures.
One thing about supporters of private health care delivery has always puzzled me. Insurance companies are almost universally hated by everyone I've ever known, hardly a good word to say about them. But when it comes to private health care, all of a sudden the insurance companies are magically terrific in the way they compete to drive down costs, even while by any measure, costs are skyrocketing. What's wrong with this picture?
-
In my 40 years of working, I spent 35 in the private sector and just under 5 in the public sector. When I hear people say that private companies are run better, I just laugh out loud. I am sure some are run well though, don't get me wrong. And yes, there are lots of things governments should not be involved in.
But making the direct comparison, in general, is a crock since governments usually get involved in people's lives where you have market failures, so you're almost always comparing apples to oranges anyway. It's relatively easy to count widgets out the door, how do you measure how well a health care system is running, by the number cured, by the number who don't get sick, something else? In the case of medical delivery, the best of US heath care is probably as good as it can be, but every comparison I've ever heard or read about shows that American health care is the most expensive among developed countries.
The comparison with what happened in Italy is nonsense and you know it. The medical system was overwhelmed but not because of its own internal ("socialist") failures.
One thing about supporters of private health care delivery has always puzzled me. Insurance companies are almost universally hated by everyone I've ever known, hardly a good word to say about them. But when it comes to private health care, all of a sudden the insurance companies are magically terrific in the way they compete to drive down costs, even while by any measure, costs are skyrocketing. What's wrong with this picture?
The difference Rob is that in the private world, yes some companies are run poorly but there are always other companies to go to. So, eventually those poorly run companies go out of business since people just jump ship. This is the free market at work.
However, with government run institutions, they are the only game in town. At first, maybe they run okay, but eventually since they have no competition, they become old and antiquated since there is no need to stay on top of the game. Like I said, they are the only game in town so why bother upgrading. And since they are the only game in town, the consumer is stuck with them with no one else to go to. Last, dont bet on them being fixed since that means politicians will be involved who have much different incentives then to make the institution run efficiently, such as not firing anyone.
A great example is the USPS. They want to modernize with better mail sorting machines to decrease cost, however this means laying people off. They need congressional approval to do so, but no politician wants to be seen destroying jobs, so it is not getting done.
Like I said, government is always worse then the free market. Yes, you can certainly find poorly run companies at anytime, but those companies will be replaced by better ones. In the free market you have plenty of choices whereas with government you are stuck with just one choice who does not have an incentive to modernize or become better.
Last, this brings us to a quasi-free market, over regulated sectors. Healthcare is over regulated and Obama-care made it worse. History has shown repeatably that when you increase regulations, prices go up and options go down. This is why private insurance is going up over and over again and the options are coming down, because the government screwed it again.
And Joe Biden wants to make it worse by having both more regulations on the private insurance market, causing prices to go up again, and providing a subsidized government option, undercutting the competition. This is a one way road to total government run healthcare, and everyone knows it.
Last, insofar as low approval ratings in the USA, nothing is worse then congress. So yes, I'd take the lesser evil of private insurance companies vs. congress running the show. We don't need a DMV of health services.
-
Like I said, government is always worse then the free market.
Anti-government, free-market ideology is all well and good, but surely a global pandemic is precisely a scenario where good governance is crucial and free-market solutions are found wanting. If we leave government out of this (from transnational to local - i.e. UN, WHO, federal and state), what kind of free-market response to a global pandemic do you envision?
-
In my 40 years of working, I spent 35 in the private sector and just under 5 in the public sector. When I hear people say that private companies are run better, I just laugh out loud. I am sure some are run well though, don't get me wrong. And yes, there are lots of things governments should not be involved in.
But making the direct comparison, in general, is a crock since governments usually get involved in people's lives where you have market failures, so you're almost always comparing apples to oranges anyway. It's relatively easy to count widgets out the door, how do you measure how well a health care system is running, by the number cured, by the number who don't get sick, something else? In the case of medical delivery, the best of US heath care is probably as good as it can be, but every comparison I've ever heard or read about shows that American health care is the most expensive among developed countries.
The comparison with what happened in Italy is nonsense and you know it. The medical system was overwhelmed but not because of its own internal ("socialist") failures.
One thing about supporters of private health care delivery has always puzzled me. Insurance companies are almost universally hated by everyone I've ever known, hardly a good word to say about them. But when it comes to private health care, all of a sudden the insurance companies are magically terrific in the way they compete to drive down costs, even while by any measure, costs are skyrocketing. What's wrong with this picture?
On the private health aspect: when my wife was going through her cancer treatment one oncologist told her that the insurance companies didn't like him prescribing some of the meds because of cost, but that he didn't care and prescribed them regardless. This was under our private insurance at the time. You need little more than that to illuminate the pressures under which the private sector functions.
Towards the end, she found herself within the public health service literally by accident: she fell and broke her hip and the local hospital (public) was half the distance away so she opted for that due to the pain - and just the night before the day they were going to replace her hip they discover cancer was back. The oncologist told her that he was not prepared to wait longer than ten days to have the cancer removed, and so they did the hip first and the cancer second. All within the constraints of his timetable for her. She asked about the differences between having it done there, in the public unit, and privately. He told her that being in the public domain did not in any way mean that she might not get any drugs she needed.
She walked out of that public hospital without a limp or crutches, and went on to a series of rehab. treatments at the hospital. It was because she found the public service so good that we cancelled the very expensive private health insurance policy.
In our neck of the woods at least, public is as good as private ever was. And in our case, easy, direct access to the public service was all thanks to Britain's membership of the EEC. Brexit? A piece of shit designed to win the vote of those xenophobes with no imagination or expectations of a wider existence than the little town in which they were born. It seems, at the moment, that those of us eligible for EEC benefits will not be deprived of them (within the country in which we resided at time of Brexit) when Britain rushes off its cliff at the end of the year. We will not be covered if we travel into other EEC countries, so we become health prisoners within that land of residence. Viva fucking Boris and the brand new neo-Nazi Conservative Party. Was a time the entire Community was mine, should I wish it. Gone.
-
Anti-government, free-market ideology is all well and good, but surely a global pandemic is precisely a scenario where good governance is crucial and free-market solutions are found wanting. If we leave government out of this (from transnational to local - i.e. UN, WHO, federal and state), what kind of free-market response to a global pandemic do you envision?
Well first, the government run healthcare in Italy did a piss poor job, and our private sector did an amazing one. So the idea that government run is better is just not supported by the evidence.
Second, USA companies are going out of their way to produce PPE and ventilators, not to mention it is the private drug companies that are working on a vaccine. This all happened without some grand over seer. You don't need things to be government run to be coordinated.
And last, look at all of the things government puts in place that screws it up, like anti-price gauging laws. Sure, sounds nice, but it takes away the incentive for companies to spend the money to change production lines, etc., to make the goods.
But I understand it, some people just want to have some sort of control over everything. I use to be that way, but then I realized the sum total of billions upon billions of transactions in the economy, many just by happenstance, cant be controlled or even fully understood, and tinkering with it just slows the gears down. So I let go of that idea.
-
For most people, medical insurance is just that -- insurance against an unlikely event, the need for expensive medical care. But what happens when medical insurance has to start paying out for expected events, like the corona virus. Most people get through the virus without needing hospitalizations, but a pretty solid percentage do need a hospital, or at least medical care. Even though medical insurance is supposedly mandatory in the US, it's clear that hundreds of thousands of people don't have it and a significant portion of those will need hospital career which they can't afford. Do you think his pandemic will push Americans closer to a universal Medicare?
It's not a question of the COVID-19 related costs but all the people who are losing their health insurance through layoffs. A lot of these people will not be coming back to their jobs. They can continue on the company insurance plan under the COBRA regulations but they have to pay the full amount of the insurance premium. Most employers only require the employee to pay 25% of the premium. For someone who is now out of a job, this will be a huge expense. I haven't seen any number on how many new applications there are for coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
IMO, the pandemic and loss of health insurance will be a big issue over the next 2 years as this new reality sinks in. If it becomes an issue in the 2020 Presidential election, the Republicans will suffer because of their long track record to repeal Obamacare. The entire healthcare system in the US is being disrupted.
-
Anti-government, free-market ideology is all well and good, but surely a global pandemic is precisely a scenario where good governance is crucial and free-market solutions are found wanting. If we leave government out of this (from transnational to local - i.e. UN, WHO, federal and state), what kind of free-market response to a global pandemic do you envision?
One that see $$$ and if you don't have the $$$...well you are on your own.
-
The difference Rob is that in the private world, yes some companies are run poorly but there are always other companies to go to. So, eventually those poorly run companies go out of business since people just jump ship. This is the free market at work.
However, with government run institutions, they are the only game in town. At first, maybe they run okay, but eventually since they have no competition, they become old and antiquated since there is no need to stay on top of the game. Like I said, they are the only game in town so why bother upgrading. And since they are the only game in town, the consumer is stuck with them with no one else to go to. Last, dont bet on them being fixed since that means politicians will be involved who have much different incentives then to make the institution run efficiently, such as not firing anyone.
A great example is the USPS. They want to modernize with better mail sorting machines to decrease cost, however this means laying people off. They need congressional approval to do so, but no politician wants to be seen destroying jobs, so it is not getting done.
Like I said, government is always worse then the free market. Yes, you can certainly find poorly run companies at anytime, but those companies will be replaced by better ones. In the free market you have plenty of choices whereas with government you are stuck with just one choice who does not have an incentive to modernize or become better.
Last, this brings us to a quasi-free market, over regulated sectors. Healthcare is over regulated and Obama-care made it worse. History has shown repeatably that when you increase regulations, prices go up and options go down. This is why private insurance is going up over and over again and the options are coming down, because the government screwed it again.
And Joe Biden wants to make it worse by having both more regulations on the private insurance market, causing prices to go up again, and providing a subsidized government option, undercutting the competition. This is a one way road to total government run healthcare, and everyone knows it.
Last, insofar as low approval ratings in the USA, nothing is worse then congress. So yes, I'd take the lesser evil of private insurance companies vs. congress running the show. We don't need a DMV of health services.
Rubbish, Joe. The public health insurance route is decidely not the only game in town; there is a plethora of private options you can buy, and buying private does not exclude your eligibility for the public service at all.
And poorly run businesses do not inevitably go out of business, especially when the competition embraces exactly the same ethic of practice. And folks do not constantly jump from one badly-run insurance company to the next: until their shit hits the personal fan they have no idea whether their company is going to screw them any more or any less than any other. By the time they find out, it's too late. Jesus, the same folks fly on any number of badly-run airlines across the world, and only a very few of these ever actually vanishes.
Private or public, there is never enough money. In one case it requires higher taxation and in the other, higher premiums. I have had battles with insurance companies over many years, the latest over the Rolex that was stolen from me in the street. The local agent first told me that I was not covered, then that I was, but only if I had been seriously injured in the robbery, which seems bullshit: it's the watch of which we speak, not about whether or not I was stabbed, shot or hit over the head with a brick; that is a separate set of claims that would be lodged. So, getting nowhere with him, I sent a registered letter to the claims department (I had an actual contact name from the local agent who filed my claim when he saw I wasn't letting go) in the head office. No reply. I sent another and still nothing. Next, I wrote to the Chief Executive Officer outlining the situation. Zero response. That's Liberty, a huge international company (I think it's US- owned) and not some fly-by-night online service.
Your unbridled urges for this mythical "freedom" that you see under constant threat is much of the reason you got burned in 2008. Some regulation with teeth would have better protected the world's ass from greed and free-running speculation and fraud. Instead, you get the butchers demanding less, and the fatted calf nodding wisely and waving placards whilst wearing silly red caps as it blunders down the road to the abattoir.
-
It's not a question of the COVID-19 related costs but all the people who are losing their health insurance through layoffs. A lot of these people will not be coming back to their jobs. They can continue on the company insurance plan under the COBRA regulations but they have to pay the full amount of the insurance premium. Most employers only require the employee to pay 25% of the premium. For someone who is now out of a job, this will be a huge expense. I haven't seen any number on how many new applications there are for coverage under the Affordable Care Act.
IMO, the pandemic and loss of health insurance will be a big issue over the next 2 years as this new reality sinks in. If it becomes an issue in the 2020 Presidential election, the Republicans will suffer because of their long track record to repeal Obamacare. The entire healthcare system in the US is being disrupted.
Trump has become an affirmed socialist. He spending money like a drunken sailor. So I suspect, he will support payments to everyone so they can get medical care. He's said a long time ago he's in favor of care for pre-existing conditions. The Republicans in Congress will go along with him because they want to be re-elected too. After all didn't they vote for CARES act 96-0?
The fact is the government will be printing and printing and printing at least until the election. Unfortunately, Covid happened before an election so politicians are all acting stupid like the well can't go dry. We're all in for a big wake up call pretty soon. The money be dropped by helicopters are pushing the stock market up. But there's no there, there. Warren Buffet sold his complete stake in 4 US airlines. He's no dummy. Sure, he said he still has confidence the American economy will come back. But he didn't say when.
-
Well first, the government run healthcare in Italy did a piss poor job, and our private sector did an amazing one. So the idea that government run is better is just not supported by the evidence.
Second, USA companies are going out of their way to produce PPE and ventilators, not to mention it is the private drug companies that are working on a vaccine. This all happened without some grand over seer. You don't need things to be government run to be coordinated.
And last, look at all of the things government puts in place that screws it up, like anti-price gauging laws. Sure, sounds nice, but it takes away the incentive for companies to spend the money to change production lines, etc., to make the goods.
But I understand it, some people just want to have some sort of control over everything. I use to be that way, but then I realized the sum total of billions upon billions of transactions in the economy, many just by happenstance, cant be controlled or even fully understood, and tinkering with it just slows the gears down. So I let go of that idea.
Italy has problems, one of which is perennially weak government and much Mafia influence in everything. It was also the first European country to get first-hand experience of what is at stake here. Your claim about the wonderful US alternative handling is funny were it not so sad for those dead, dying and going to die. That you had so much advance warning but were nationally blinded by an already blind leader first in denial, just like his mates in London, Moscow, NK and, ironically, for a while, in Iran, too, is why your deaths are immense in number. Flipping from one politically motivated move (such as travel bans for one set of foreign nationals but not others next door to them) to another was no way to deal with a factor that does not recognize politics, religion, colour or trade deals. It simply illustrated the Trumpian love for smoke, mirrors and covering one's personal ass at all times by blaming someone or something else rather than actually doing something well for a change, regardless of politics and elections. It also reminds the rest of the world of headless chickens in flight.
Of course it's private, big pharma working on vaccines - there's a fucking fortune awaiting them! British companies also make hospital equipment where before they made car parts; maybe your fake-news moguls only tell you that it happens in the States... :-) In Europe, governmental finance is already being raised for more expenditure on just that kind of thing. It's so unfortunate that Americans generally seems to see nothing beyond their own news outlets.
Anti price-gauging rules making it hard for companies to keep up to date? Doesn't that signal to you that something bad is actually already going on: you are currently being screwed, and to remedy that, to get the deal you thought you already had, you are going to have to pay more?
I'm sorry, but to argue that "some people want to have some sort of control over everything" is irrelevant to the matter of public health. What peope who have experienced real choice want is both options to remain on the table: nobody wants to take away from the wealthy their ability to be ill in luxury; wonderful for them and good luck! What the rest of us want is to have a state-provided total medical service that isn't going to skimp in its attempts to keep you healthy in body and mind, and most of all does not depend on your ability to buy insurance. I can think of very few better purposes for anybody's tax bucks.
-
Italy has problems, one of which is perennially weak government and much Mafia influence in everything. It was also the first European country to get first-hand experience of what is at stake here. Your claim about the wonderful US alternative handling is funny were it not so sad for those dead, dying and going to die. That you had so much advance warning but were nationally blinded by an already blind leader first in denial, just like his mates in London, Moscow, NK and, ironically, for a while, in Iran, too, is why your deaths are immense in number. Flipping from one politically motivated move (such as travel bans for one set of foreign nationals but not others next door to them) to another was no way to deal with a factor that does not recognize politics, religion, colour or trade deals. It simply illustrated the Trumpian love for smoke, mirrors and covering one's personal ass at all times by blaming someone or something else rather than actually doing something well for a change, regardless of politics and elections. It also reminds the rest of the world of headless chickens in flight.
Of course it's private, big pharma working on vaccines - there's a fucking fortune awaiting them! British companies also make hospital equipment where before they made car parts; maybe your fake-news moguls only tell you that it happens in the States... :-)
Anti price-gauging rules making it hard for companies to keep up to date? Doesn't that signal to you that something bad is actually already going on: you are currently being screwed, and to remedy that, to get the deal you thought you already had, you are going to have to pay more?
I'm sorry, but to argue that "some people want to have some sort of control over everything" is irrelevant to the matter of public health. What peope who have experienced real choice want is both options to remain on the table: nobody wants to take away from the wealthy their ability to be ill in luxury; wonderful for them and good luck! What the rest of us want is to have a state-provided total medical service that isn't going to skimp in its attempts to keep you healthy in body and mind, and most of all does not depend on your ability to buy insurance. I can think of very few better purposes for anybody's tax bucks.
We were promised that with Obamacare. Lower costs, better coverage, keep the same doctors we had. We didn't get any of the three. In fact, costs went up, less coverage as deductible went up too, and we lost many of the doctors we had been using. So government lied to us. Again.
Why would anyone trust the government? Once burned; twice foolish.
Add to that, the government in America at least is broke., Our economy will take a 5 trillion dollar hit. GDP down, what, 20%. Who knows? There's not enough green ink.
-
We were promised that with Obamacare. Lower costs, better coverage, keep the same doctors we had. We didn't get any of the three. In fact, costs went up, less coverage as deductible went up too, and we lost many of the doctors we had been using. So government lied to us. Again.
Obama didn't lie. It was an aspirational statement.
-
Obama didn't lie. It was an aspirational statement.
No, he lied.
It came out later in his 2nd term that he knew that statement was false and not possible when he said. Guber, one of the architects of Obama Care, told us so.
-
No, he lied.
It came out later in his 2nd term that he knew that statement was false and not possible when he said. Guber, one of the architects of Obama Care, told us so.
Is this the standard for Trump as well?
"he knew that statement was false and not possible when he said"
-
Is this the standard for Trump as well?
"he knew that statement was false and not possible when he said"
It was documented and Gruber even told us he knew personally that Obama realized that statement was false when he said it.
Obama lied about Obama-care.
If you can prove it, yes, you can use it against Trump too.
-
Is this the standard for Trump as well?
"he knew that statement was false and not possible when he said"
-
Is this the standard for Trump as well?
"he knew that statement was false and not possible when he said"
Repeating yourself does not make you smarter.
-
Repeating yourself does not make you smarter.
Neither does ignoring the question.
-
Neither does ignoring the question.
Note the last line in my comment, yes, it does, if you can prove it.
Try reading!
-
Neither does ignoring the question.
So I just noted; you are not alone. But anyway, I'm not getting sucked back into this pointless argument with rubber walls and closed minds that imagine their cherished and often largely illusory freedoms are under attack when governments are actually, if belatedly, trying to save their lives. As is often said, one couldn't make this up. Funnily enough, as I write, I just saw another clip of a guy in a US street protest group saying "we were born free; they can't be allowed to take our freedoms away and lock us up unless we are ill!
That the entire point is to prevent him falling ill because some other contaminated dickhead breathed at him seems irrelevant in this theory of freedom for its own, blind sake. And they say justice is blind!
The same denial, at least in the initial stages, has meant that Britain has now become the European country with the highest number of Corinna deaths: 30,000.
Adios, thread!
-
So I just noted; you are not alone. But anyway, I'm not getting sucked back into this pointless argument with rubber walls and closed minds that imagine their cherished and often largely illusory freedoms are under attack when governments are actually, if belatedly, trying to save their lives. As is often said, one couldn't make this up. Funnily enough, as I write, I just saw another clip of a guy in a US street protest group saying "we were born free; they can't be allowed to take our freedoms away and lock us up unless we are ill!
That the entire point is to prevent him falling ill because some other contaminated dickhead breathed at him seems irrelevant in this theory of freedom for its own, blind sake. And they say justice is blind!
The same denial, at least in the initial stages, has meant that Britain has now become the European country with the highest number of Corinna deaths: 30,000.
Adios, thread!
I'm sorry Rob that you have health insurance problems. The irony is that it was the government that took your government health insurance away. So why would you praise the government and want to go back to more of the same? If you stayed with private health insurance, you could be traveling to other parts of the continent instead of being stuck in Spain.
This is why I'm opposed to government insurance. You're dependent on bureaucrats who don;t give a damn about you or your family. It's better to have control of you health and your family's in your own hands.
I've mentioned this before. But in America we have similar problems. I'm on Medicare. Everyone goes on it if they want; most do. However, what I didn't know is 1. You actually pay thousand of dollars for it annually. It's not free. There's also a deductible. And only a small amount of drugs are covered. 2. Many of the best doctors opt out, meaning if you want to use their services, you have to pay 100% out of pocket. Medicare will not reimburse you a dime. Neither will secondary insurance companies. Once Medicare doesn;t pay as your primary, the secondary doesn't have to pay either. Doctors that I could go to before Medicare that would be picked up by my private insurance so I get something back, now becomes voided on Medicare. So what happens only the rich can afford the best doctors. The rest of us have to make due with the less competent. The same things is going to happen with national medical care. The best doctors will opt out even for younger folks. This is why private health coverage is better. But the media and the politicians hide all this just as Obama did when he lied about Obamacare. They're still lying.
-
I'm sorry Rob that you have health insurance problems. The irony is that it was the government that took your government health insurance away. So why would you praise the government and want to go back to more of the same? If you stayed with private health insurance, you could be traveling to other parts of the continent instead of being stuck in Spain.
This is why I'm opposed to government insurance. You're dependent on bureaucrats who don;t give a damn about you or your family. It's better to have control of you health and your family's in your own hands.
I've mentioned this before. But in America we have similar problems. I'm on Medicare. Everyone goes on it if they want; most do. However, what I didn't know is 1. You actually pay thousand of dollars for it annually. It's not free. There's also a deductible. And only a small amount of drugs are covered. 2. Many of the best doctors opt out, meaning if you want to use their services, you have to pay 100% out of pocket. Medicare will not reimburse you a dime. Neither will secondary insurance companies. Once Medicare doesn;t pay as your primary, the secondary doesn't have to pay either. Doctors that I could go to before Medicare that would be picked up by my private insurance so I get something back, now becomes voided on Medicare. So what happens only the rich can afford the best doctors. The rest of us have to make due with the less competent. The same things is going to happen with national medical care. The best doctors will opt out even for younger folks. This is why private health coverage is better. But the media and the politicians hide all this just as Obama did when he lied about Obamacare. They're still lying.
I'm also on Medicare, and I pay (directly) some $3600 I believe (I didn't stop to look it up.) I also pay some $80 a month for supplemental insurance, so that's another thousand. On the other hand, I'm 76, and though I'm healthy, a lot of 76-year-olds have serious health problems. My son, who is 50, and has a wife in her late 30s, both quite healthy with no major health problems at all, and no children, pay more than $15,000 fora fairly standard health insurance policy that covers neither dental or eye care. Your Medicare is a huge bargain, even with the limitations.
-
In Canada you pay for your medical slowly through taxes, but when you need it, you don't have to scramble looking for money to cover the treatment. My father had multiple cancers, the worst being esophageal cancer which had him in the hospital for 6 months and then stayed at a cancer treatment centre for another 4 months getting chemo. Later on he had multiple strokes which had him in hospital and rehab and finally bladder cancer. All treatment was provided at no charge. Yes, you slowly pay for this treatment during your earning years...but when you need to draw on it...it is there for you.
I'm quite happy having government funded medical and not worry about some private insurance company bypassing the correct treatment or medicine in order to save a buck.
-
Even though medical insurance is supposedly mandatory in the US, it's clear that hundreds of thousands of people don't have it and a significant portion of those will need hospital career which they can't afford. Do you think his pandemic will push Americans closer to a universal Medicare?
Given some of the heated debate that has ensued since this thread was started, I thought it might be appropriate to make it clear to those of you who don't live in the United States that the federal Medicare (for old people) and Medicaid (for poor ones) systems are insurance programs. They reimburse private doctors and other medical providers who agree to participate at specified rates for the services they deliver to their patients. Medicare coverage for hospitalized patients is funded by payroll taxes jointly paid by employers and employees, while recipients who want the program's other services―outpatient care and medications for example―fund them through subscription payments.
Medicare and Medicaid are not equivalent to programs in other countries where the government directly provides medical services, such as Britain's NHS. The only major U.S. federal programs that directly provide medical services to Americans are those operated by the military for its active-duty personnel and by the Department of Veterans Affairs for military veterans.
What primarily distinguishes Medicare from private insurance programs is that the former is regulated by the federal government and the latter by the individual states. Medicaid is funded by the federal government but operated by the state governments under a shared regulatory regime.
Various Democratic Party and nominally independent politicians have proposed creating either (1) a "Medicare for all" program which would enroll everyone in the country and essentially replace private insurance or (2) a "public option" which would make a government-funded, Medicare-like program available to everyone as a competitive alternative to private insurance. To date, at least, almost all Republican politicians have opposed both proposals.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 ("Obamacare") is a statute enacted by Congress and signed by President Obama which essentially authorizes the federal government to regulate a special insurance exchange in each state that can be used by participating insurance companies to offer private medical coverage to those who are not insured by an employer or who are unable to purchase a satisfactory insurance policy on the open market.
There has never been any viable political movement in the United States to create a true "socialized medicine" program.
-
I'm also on Medicare, and I pay (directly) some $3600 I believe (I didn't stop to look it up.) I also pay some $80 a month for supplemental insurance, so that's another thousand. On the other hand, I'm 76, and though I'm healthy, a lot of 76-year-olds have serious health problems. My son, who is 50, and has a wife in her late 30s, both quite healthy with no major health problems at all, and no children, pay more than $15,000 fora fairly standard health insurance policy that covers neither dental or eye care. Your Medicare is a huge bargain, even with the limitations.
I was listing the limitations. I was mainly trying describe how these limitations cause problems similarly to Rob's in GB (Spain). What the government gives, the government can take away. Right now you're only paying $3600. What will it be next year? The charge is based on income so your's will definitely go up. What with less taxes collected and the GDP going down, the government is going to have less money. SS and Medicare were already going broke before the virus. The money's gone.
You also paid for Medicare all your life at 1.45% of your salary and your employer matched that. So you've been paying for it for years that you didn't use it. So it's a lot more than $3600 a year. Like SS, heirs can't collect on all those payments if a person dies before they start to collect. That doesn't happen with savings and investments. You also can't use the best doctors. The point is, just like Rob got screwed by the government, future recipients are going to get screwed too. Just how much benefit will your son and my 42 year old daughter get when they hit 65? They're going to get screwed just like ROb got screwed. Just like the states are broke and can't afford to pay the pensions they promised, the same thing is going to happen with SS and Medicare. You and I may be the last people who benefit from it. And since we're not dead yet, thank God, we may loss benefits before we go too. The whole thing is very tenuous.
-
In Canada you pay for your medical slowly through taxes, but when you need it, you don't have to scramble looking for money to cover the treatment. My father had multiple cancers, the worst being esophageal cancer which had him in the hospital for 6 months and then stayed at a cancer treatment centre for another 4 months getting chemo. Later on he had multiple strokes which had him in hospital and rehab and finally bladder cancer. All treatment was provided at no charge. Yes, you slowly pay for this treatment during your earning years...but when you need to draw on it...it is there for you.
I'm quite happy having government funded medical and not worry about some private insurance company bypassing the correct treatment or medicine in order to save a buck.
You bring up several things problems that you don't hear about private insurance in the US, one of the worst being that unless you buy *really* expensive plans -- $30,000 or 40,000 annually per person -- most have a pay-out cutoff. You *won't* get complete treatment if it costs too much -- in fact, you won't get the best treatment if it costs too much, even if the total cost wouldn't reach the cutoff. In other words, they leave you to go bankrupt or die, or both. Medicare doesn't do that. And most critics of Medicare don't talk about the fact that before Obamacare, the cost of health insurance was soaring out of sight, one reason that the plan passed. Obamacare at least slowed the costs, although they have continued to rise. High tech medicine costs a lot.
Alan is (technically) wrong about paying 1.45% of my income for Medicare -- since I'm self-employed, I pay 2.9% of my total income, just as I pay 15% (up to the limit) for Social Security, because I'm self-employed. So the situation there is a little worse than he suggests, in terms of costs.
However, I don't think a 3% - 6% payroll taxes (for employed and self-employed) rather than the current 1.45%/2.9% -- in other words. double the tax -- would be unreasonable for a national medical program. I would favor opt-outs, from the program, but not opt-outs from the taxes. IN other words, you'd be free to add private insurance if you wished, on top of what the government offered.
-
You bring up several things problems that you don't hear about private insurance in the US, one of the worst being that unless you buy *really* expensive plans -- $30,000 or 40,000 annually per person -- most have a pay-out cutoff. You *won't* get complete treatment if it costs too much -- in fact, you won't get the best treatment if it costs too much, even if the total cost wouldn't reach the cutoff. In other words, they leave you to go bankrupt or die, or both. Medicare doesn't do that. And most critics of Medicare don't talk about the fact that before Obamacare, the cost of health insurance was soaring out of sight, one reason that the plan passed. Obamacare at least slowed the costs, although they have continued to rise. High tech medicine costs a lot.
Alan is (technically) wrong about paying 1.45% of my income for Medicare -- since I'm self-employed, I pay 2.9% of my total income, just as I pay 15% (up to the limit) for Social Security, because I'm self-employed. So the situation there is a little worse than he suggests, in terms of costs.
However, I don't think a 3% - 6% payroll taxes (for employed and self-employed) rather than the current 1.45%/2.9% -- in other words. double the tax -- would be unreasonable for a national medical program. I would favor opt-outs, from the program, but not opt-outs from the taxes. IN other words, you'd be free to add private insurance if you wished, on top of what the government offered.
Obamacare caused the costs to go up a lot. And for a lot less in coverage. Deductibles went up too although frankly, I don't think health insurance should cover much of initial regular coverage, but rather for heavy duty stuff. No one has eating insurance or haircut insurance, or for that matter dental insurance. W should consider paying some health costs as part of living costs like eating. That would also lower the premiums as those costs just get passed along anyway.
Regarding Medicare salary deductions, I didn;t know you were self-employed. But the amounts are the same. Since you're employer and employee, you pay both halves. Other people who work for someone else, their employer pays half (1.45%) and the employee pays the other half (1.45%) of the 2.9% total. Same with SS. 6.2% + 6.2% = 12.4%. Now Trump and Congress are talking about waiving these taxes until the end of the year. They want to buy votes. Of course, these programs will be even broker. But there are always the printing presses.
If the government can do national health care for 3% or 6% including employer, so could private health insurance. Keep the government out of it. Otherwise we'll all have to move to Spain like Rob. :)
-
I made the mistake of going into this section of LuLa before I logged in. Unfortunately, that meant that my "ignore" list was inoperative.
Clearly, Mr Klein remains incapable or both reading and understanding what I write at the same time. (Perhaps starting with the chewing gum first might help. ;-))
1. "I'm sorry Rob that you have health insurance problems. The irony is that it was the government that took your government health insurance away."
No, for the hundredth time: I still have UK medical cover should I return to Britain. What has been lost is guaranteed reciprocal medical care for all Brits throughout European member states, whether living in Europe or on holiday in Europe. That was a bonus brought about by membership of the EEC. Without being members, it would be as daft as expecting Americans also to have full rights of access to free European health care systems. It is not a case of the US government taking their rights away - they would simply never held those rights in the first place. Do you get it now?
2. "Keep the government out of it. Otherwise we'll all have to move to Spain like Rob."
In which way did the British Government or its National Health Service make me move to Spain?
I moved to Spain because of professional reasons that had everything to do with shooting calendar productions and nothing whatsoever to do with health. In fact, for the first thirty-odd years I was paying private health insurance here in Spain whilst still eligible for any treatment I needed back in Britain.
Eventual mutual membership of the EEC removed the need for private insurance for all member Europeans within each other's countries. In my case, I stopped buying private when my wife discovered that the national service in Mallorca was every bit as good as the private one which was costing us an arm and a leg, an added expense which, whilst working, was bearable, but in retirement, painful.
That did not kill the private insurance systems. They flourish to this day because people enjoy choices, and it's great having at least two, especially for as long as one both can, and is willing to afford, the cost of the private one.
Advocates of a comprehensive, paid-by-taxation government/national health service do not demand the abolition of the private sector. They are separate, independent entities and both have a place in society. Stop thinking of health services as a zero-sum game.
Rob
-
Must have been prescient those years ago:
-
I made the mistake of going into this section of LuLa before I logged in. Unfortunately, that meant that my "ignore" list was inoperative.
Clearly, Mr Klein remains incapable or both reading and understanding what I write at the same time. (Perhaps starting with the chewing gum first might help. ;-))
1. "I'm sorry Rob that you have health insurance problems. The irony is that it was the government that took your government health insurance away."
No, for the hundredth time: I still have UK medical cover should I return to Britain. What has been lost is guaranteed reciprocal medical care for all Brits throughout European member states, whether living in Europe or on holiday in Europe. That was a bonus brought about by membership of the EEC. Without being members, it would be as daft as expecting Americans also to have full rights of access to free European health care systems. It is not a case of the US government taking their rights away - they would simply never held those rights in the first place. Do you get it now?
2. "Keep the government out of it. Otherwise we'll all have to move to Spain like Rob."
In which way did the British Government or its National Health Service make me move to Spain?
I moved to Spain because of professional reasons that had everything to do with shooting calendar productions and nothing whatsoever to do with health. In fact, for the first thirty-odd years I was paying private health insurance here in Spain whilst still eligible for any treatment I needed back in Britain.
Eventual mutual membership of the EEC removed the need for private insurance for all member Europeans within each other's countries. In my case, I stopped buying private when my wife discovered that the national service in Mallorca was every bit as good as the private one which was costing us an arm and a leg, an added expense which, whilst working, was bearable, but in retirement, painful.
That did not kill the private insurance systems. They flourish to this day because people enjoy choices, and it's great having at least two, especially for as long as one both can, and is willing to afford, the cost of the private one.
Advocates of a comprehensive, paid-by-taxation government/national health service do not demand the abolition of the private sector. They are separate, independent entities and both have a place in society. Stop thinking of health services as a zero-sum game.
Rob
I'm glad we're communicating. I think we agree on more things then we don't. First, about my comment that we'd all have to move to Spain was just me being lighthearted about the subject. Some things don't translate well on an international forum. Actually Spain seems like a nice place to go. I learned Spanish in JHS and High School, Castilian with the hard C's not like most Spanish speaking people in the US with the soft version. I enjoyed the bullfight I went to it 40 years ago in Mexico City and would love to see it again in Madrid. What with the virus, I don't suppose I'm traveling any time too soon.
The point with government insurance is you're dependent on them. Bureaucrats control your destiny. Because of Brexit, they wound up hurting you and making it hard to travel throughout Europe. I believe you said that you're only covered in Spain. Had you private insurance, there are plans available that would protect you anywhere on the continent. Sure you still can buy private plans. The problem is taxes have gone up to pay for government provided medicine. So buying a private plan becomes prohibitive for most people because the additional taxes they collect to pay for public health care leaves you less money to afford to buy a private plan. Plus most people will accept things that are "free". It's just a bad deal in my opinion. My own Medicare is a government plan. As I mentioned I'm limited to the doctors I choose. The best opted out and charge cash which I can't afford. Anyway, stay healthy and stay safe.
-
The point with government insurance is you're dependent on them. Bureaucrats control your destiny.
Utter nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
-
Utter nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
Who would I rather have my back, my government ( people ) funded insurance or some private insurance that has profits as their motivation. Hmmm....give me a second to think about it.
-
Utter nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
What the government gives. The government can take away.
-
What the government gives. The government can take away.
You are obsessing.
The government is you. A private insurance company is your best friend while you pay the premiums and your sworn deep-pockets adversary the instant you make a claim.
-
The point with government insurance is you're dependent on them. Bureaucrats control your destiny.
Utter nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
It's one of his more charming attributes, Robert.
Jeremy
-
Who would I rather have my back, my government ( people ) funded insurance or some private insurance that has profits as their motivation. Hmmm....give me a second to think about it.
The government took away some of Rob's health benefits that he would have had if he went with a private insurer. That's what we were discussing. Profits and competition get you the best, and most cost effective products. Look where digital photography is today? When Kodak film dropped the ball, they were bypassed and pushed to near extinction. The government didn't invent the Nikon and Canons and others. How come you trust private in everything else? Home insurance is private. Life Insurance is private. Your photo editing company is private. You purchase a reputable company and like anything else, if you're not happy, change. You can shop around. You can't shop around when government provides it. Everything the government provides sucks. At least in America. Maybe you have better bureaucrats than we do. But I doubt it.
-
Utter nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about.
It's one of his more charming attributes, Robert.
Jeremy
Oh great. Now I have to fight with the umpire. :)
-
The government took away some of Rob's health benefits that he would have had if he went with a private insurer. That's what we were discussing. Profits and competition get you the best, and most cost effective products. Look where digital photography is today? When Kodak film dropped the ball, they were bypassed and pushed to near extinction. The government didn't invent the Nikon and Canons and others. How come you trust private in everything else? Home insurance is private. Life Insurance is private. Your photo editing company is private. You purchase a reputable company and like anything else, if you're not happy, change. You can shop around. You can't shop around when government provides it. Everything the government provides sucks. At least in America. Maybe you have better bureaucrats than we do. But I doubt it.
Well maybe that is your corrupt government. The US spends twice the amount on medical care per capita than Canada...yet so many people in the US cannot get the care they need. Yes private at times can be better...but they can pick and choose who and what to cover so that they maximise profits. If you so happen to be in their target group...great...but if you are a high risk...well you better be ready to pay for it. Unfortunately, many high risk people are in their retirement years with no company sponsered insurance and they cannot afford the every growing premiums on their constantly eroding pensions...so they just need to suck it up...like my friend at age 72 being forced to continue working in order to afford the medical care his wife requires.
-
Alan is (technically) wrong about paying 1.45% of my income for Medicare -- since I'm self-employed, I pay 2.9% of my total income, just as I pay 15% (up to the limit) for Social Security, because I'm self-employed. So the situation there is a little worse than he suggests, in terms of costs.
Yea you pay it up front but you get half back as a tax deduction, actually a reduction to your base earnings and is taken as a line item in calculating your adjusted gross income
As to just a multiple of 2 to your current medicare tax, do you really that little is going to cover the full cost of medicare for all for everyone? How about a multiple of say 6-10 or more?
-
Well maybe that is your corrupt government. The US spends twice the amount on medical care per capita than Canada...yet so many people in the US cannot get the care they need. Yes private at times can be better...but they can pick and choose who and what to cover so that they maximise profits. If you so happen to be in their target group...great...but if you are a high risk...well you better be ready to pay for it. Unfortunately, many high risk people are in their retirement years with no company sponsered insurance and they cannot afford the every growing premiums on their constantly eroding pensions...so they just need to suck it up...like my friend at age 72 being forced to continue working in order to afford the medical care his wife requires.
In the US, at 72, your friend has access to medicare for medical coverage. It covers 80% of your medical costs, (if hte treatmetns are approved) and it pays the provider at a negotiated rate. Unless his wife is less than 65 years old, she too can get medicare. You pay $144.60 per month for this coverage. Your deductable is $198. If oyu choose you may buy a suppliment plan to pick up th 20% medicare does not vover. Cost of these plans vary but all plans must offer the exact same coverage. Look at between $80 and $120 bucks a month at age 65 for these plans.
For coverage for drugs you need yet another paln, called a part d. These plans pay a graduated amount for drugs and have a hole in the middle where you will be required to pay a substantial amount for your drugs. its complicated but you pay a co-pay up until a certain amount and then you fall into the hole. Until you have spent $5,018.75 out of pocket you remain in this hole. after that, Medicare pays for 95% of the cost of your drugs. Coverage costs $30-490 per month depending on wht deductables and pharmacies you select.
Quite frankly I thnik the system is way too confusing, at a time when the customer is getting older and perhaps not as aware as they could be. But its a much better deal than buying individual insurance. My costs for a husband/wife priviate plan was nearly $25k a year before we went on medicare.
-
Well maybe that is your corrupt government. The US spends twice the amount on medical care per capita than Canada...yet so many people in the US cannot get the care they need. Yes private at times can be better...but they can pick and choose who and what to cover so that they maximise profits. If you so happen to be in their target group...great...but if you are a high risk...well you better be ready to pay for it. Unfortunately, many high risk people are in their retirement years with no company sponsered insurance and they cannot afford the every growing premiums on their constantly eroding pensions...so they just need to suck it up...like my friend at age 72 being forced to continue working in order to afford the medical care his wife requires.
Chez, he still doesn't get it; I have concluded that he doesn't want to get it, but prefers endlessly repeating the same garbled - and now most patently obviously - intentional misrepresentation of what happened to me via Brexit, which has zero to do with the UK NHS provisions for its citizens nor with what I actually write.
In fact, I think his sole purpose is to be a shill for the American Republican Party, and to spread as much misinformation as he can. Stuff giving him any more oxygen.
-
Well maybe that is your corrupt government. The US spends twice the amount on medical care per capita than Canada...yet so many people in the US cannot get the care they need. Yes private at times can be better...but they can pick and choose who and what to cover so that they maximise profits. If you so happen to be in their target group...great...but if you are a high risk...well you better be ready to pay for it. Unfortunately, many high risk people are in their retirement years with no company sponsered insurance and they cannot afford the every growing premiums on their constantly eroding pensions...so they just need to suck it up...like my friend at age 72 being forced to continue working in order to afford the medical care his wife requires.
Apparently, your Canada has awful problems of its own. The following is Les's comment from the other thread. I hope he doesn't mind if I copy it.
Quote: "For people who can watch CBC, there is a good discussion on TVO about the hospital backlog and challenges how to clear it. 75,000 surgeries postponed just in Ontario, 12,000 new postponents added each week. It is a very serious and complex problem, people are dying because they can't get the treatment and hospital staff is getting burned out. While most of the beds reserved for the virus patients are unoccupied. The table below show that only 10% of the reserved beds are presently in use and operating rooms run on half-capacity. No doubt, most beds are empty due to the early lockdown, but OTOH that's also a tremendous waste. Clearing the backlog may take a year or longer."
https://www.tvo.org/video/getting-ontario-to-the-post-covid-hospital
-
...and that's on top of normal delays in Canada for health services that don't affect the USA.
-
Apparently, your Canada has awful problems of its own. The following is Les's comment from the other thread. I hope he doesn't mind if I copy it.
Quote: "For people who can watch CBC, there is a good discussion on TVO about the hospital backlog and challenges how to clear it. 75,000 surgeries postponed just in Ontario, 12,000 new postponents added each week. It is a very serious and complex problem, people are dying because they can't get the treatment and hospital staff is getting burned out. While most of the beds reserved for the virus patients are unoccupied. The table below show that only 10% of the reserved beds are presently in use and operating rooms run on half-capacity. No doubt, most beds are empty due to the early lockdown, but OTOH that's also a tremendous waste. Clearing the backlog may take a year or longer."
https://www.tvo.org/video/getting-ontario-to-the-post-covid-hospital
Nobody said Canada's system was perfect. Or I never did anyway. Those backlogs are because of the Covid-19, they are probably occurring everywhere. It's a balancing act to manage regular medical care at the same time as the Covid-19 response. Many countries are experiencing this and those problems have nothing to do with whether there are multiple insurance companies involved or just one payer. There are no government bureaucrats throwing wrenches into the system, that's just something you keeping repeating.
-
...and that's on top of normal delays in Canada for health services that don't affect the USA.
That's a big assumption you just made there.
From things that you have said in the past, you seem to think that when Canadians need health care they need to check with a government bureaucrat first and be assigned a place in the queue. This is not how it works. It has never worked like that. You don't understand a thing about it. You have it wrong. Wherever you read that bullshit, they were lying to you.
-
...and that's on top of normal delays in Canada for health services that don't affect the USA.
Well my friend in Georgia has been waiting 5 years to get his knees replaced...but just cannot afford it along with his wife's medical costs. So yeh...if one is privileged, you might get the surgery done quicker...but if you are not the few privileged... you might die waiting. In Canada...there is not this privileged elitist versus the poor when it comes to medical care.
-
Well my friend in Georgia has been waiting 5 years to get his knees replaced...but just cannot afford it along with his wife's medical costs. So yeh...if one is privileged, you might get the surgery done quicker...but if you are not the few privileged... you might die waiting. In Canada...there is not this privileged elitist versus the poor when it comes to medical care.
Well, actually, there is a privileged elitist group in Canada, or at least in Ontario and Quebec. There are a couple of hospitals in Cleveland where they can go and simply pay for whatever procedure they want; the clinics are largely used by Canadians, and are set up specifically to service Canadians. As I understand it, this is usually done to jump the lines in Canada, where for elective procedures, the waits can be quite long. And you really do't want to be standing between a Canadian lady and her facelift.
I will say that Canadian public hospitals are very good -- a couple of decades ago, my daughter needed a very rare nerve splicing procedure which was done only at two hospitals in North America, one in Texas and one in Toronto. After checking them out, we went to Toronto and were quite happy with the doctors and the outcome. While we were there, we met a man who'd suffered from severe frostbite in far northern Canada the winter before we were there, and had lost all his fingers and toes, but they'd managed to save his feet and hands. He was there getting some really odd and advanced (for the time) prosthetics. l'd done some medical reporting during my newspaper career, and I was extremely impressed by what they were doing for the guy. I don't believe it would have been done better in the US at any cost.
-
Well, actually, there is a privileged elitist group in Canada, or at least in Ontario and Quebec. There are a couple of hospitals in Cleveland where they can go and simply pay for whatever procedure they want; the clinics are largely used by Canadians, and are set up specifically to service Canadians. As I understand it, this is usually done to jump the lines in Canada, where for elective procedures, the waits can be quite long. And you really do't want to be standing between a Canadian lady and her facelift.
I will say that Canadian public hospitals are very good -- a couple of decades ago, my daughter needed a very rare nerve splicing procedure which was done only at two hospitals in North America, one in Texas and one in Toronto. After checking them out, we went to Toronto and were quite happy with the doctors and the outcome. While we were there, we met a man who'd suffered from severe frostbite in far northern Canada the winter before we were there, and had lost all his fingers and toes, but they'd managed to save his feet and hands. He was there getting some really odd and advanced (for the time) prosthetics. l'd done some medical reporting during my newspaper career, and I was extremely impressed by what they were doing for the guy. I don't believe it would have been done better in the US at any cost.
There are elitist in every society...look at how quickly sports figures get fixed up. But the bottom line, they had to go to the US or quite often Mexico to get this elite service...not in Canada. Here by and large medical service is provided on an on need basis...not how thick one's wallet is. My Dad who lived off of CPP and OAS got into the hospital the exact day he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Now it was quite advanced and restricted his esophagus passage to the point they had to directly feed him into his stomach...but he needed the care right away and got it. He was not a rich guy by any means.
-
That's a big assumption you just made there.
From things that you have said in the past, you seem to think that when Canadians need health care they need to check with a government bureaucrat first and be assigned a place in the queue. This is not how it works. It has never worked like that. You don't understand a thing about it. You have it wrong. Wherever you read that bullshit, they were lying to you.
Apparently there are significant wait times in Canada for medical services. I know in the US, you can get an MRI or CT Scan the same or next day. Many Canadians come to the US because they can't wait. Wait times seem to be getting worse over the years. The reports below are indicative of those statistics before coronavirus. Delays are going to be even more extensive because of it. There are advantages and disadvantages to every nation's health measures. Each country has to make a decision on what's best for themselves.
"This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that, overall, waiting times for medically necessary treatment have decreased since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 19.8 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment—shorter than the wait of 21.2 weeks reported in 2017. This year’s wait time is 113% longer than in 1993, when it was just 9.3 weeks.
...Patients also experience significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across the provinces. This year, Canadians could expect to wait 4.3 weeks for a computed tomography (CT) scan, 10.6 weeks for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound."
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2018
-
Apparently, your Canada has awful problems of its own. The following is Les's comment from the other thread. I hope he doesn't mind if I copy it.
Quote: "For people who can watch CBC, there is a good discussion on TVO about the hospital backlog and challenges how to clear it. 75,000 surgeries postponed just in Ontario, 12,000 new postponents added each week. It is a very serious and complex problem, people are dying because they can't get the treatment and hospital staff is getting burned out. While most of the beds reserved for the virus patients are unoccupied. The table below show that only 10% of the reserved beds are presently in use and operating rooms run on half-capacity. No doubt, most beds are empty due to the early lockdown, but OTOH that's also a tremendous waste. Clearing the backlog may take a year or longer."
https://www.tvo.org/video/getting-ontario-to-the-post-covid-hospital
Alan, how do the American hospitals deal with elective surgeries and cancer treatments? Still performing them or putting them on hold?
Do you have any data on such backlogs in NY and NJ? If so, how many elective procedures are performed normally per week in each state?
-
Apparently there are significant wait times in Canada for medical services. I know in the US, you can get an MRI or CT Scan the same or next day. Many Canadians come to the US because they can't wait. Wait times seem to be getting worse over the years. The reports below are indicative of those statistics before coronavirus. Delays are going to be even more extensive because of it. There are advantages and disadvantages to every nation's health measures. Each country has to make a decision on what's best for themselves.
"This edition of Waiting Your Turn indicates that, overall, waiting times for medically necessary treatment have decreased since last year. Specialist physicians surveyed report a median waiting time of 19.8 weeks between referral from a general practitioner and receipt of treatment—shorter than the wait of 21.2 weeks reported in 2017. This year’s wait time is 113% longer than in 1993, when it was just 9.3 weeks.
...Patients also experience significant waiting times for various diagnostic technologies across the provinces. This year, Canadians could expect to wait 4.3 weeks for a computed tomography (CT) scan, 10.6 weeks for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound."
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/waiting-your-turn-wait-times-for-health-care-in-canada-2018
Alan, if you have no medical insurance in the US, how do you get that MRI test? The US has 28M people with no medical insurance and most likely growing as people get laid off and losing their insurance. Another tidbit...the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in the US is dealing with medical bills.
Personally I'd wait a few months for my elective surgery than filing for bankruptcy to get it sooner. Like I said, the elite have no issues on either system...it's how the poor are dealt with that really separates the two medical systems.
Again, my friend in Georgia is forced to work to pay for his wife's medical...with nothing left over to get his knee replacement. He's been in this situation for the last 5 years...that's some wait list.
-
Alan, how do the American hospitals deal with elective surgeries and cancer treatments? Still performing them or putting them on hold?
Do you have any data on such backlogs in NY and NJ? If so, how many elective procedures are performed normally per week in each state?
My nephew who's a anesthesiologist up at Mass General in Boston told me they stopped elective surgery at the beginning of the virus. But then later he went back to work. He's also a researcher. But that work has been stopped entirely.
I don't know what's going on in my area of NJ and NYC. But I suspect most hospitals are backlogged. My 97 YO mother-in-law's cardiologist's office called us today cancelling her appt Monday with the comment that we should call if there are any emergencies. That was nice of them to let us know we should call. Of course, she's in an assisted living center and we can't visit her and they don;t let her out. She has to eat in her room like a convict rather than the main dining room. Fortunately, the staff seems to be well equipped now with PPE and have procedures down so infections don't spread. But who really knows? I've skipped some doctor appts I should have been too. But right now I need some dental work that's not getting done. The whole world seems on hold.
-
Alan, if you have no medical insurance in the US, how do you get that MRI test? The US has 28M people with no medical insurance and most likely growing as people get laid off and losing their insurance. Another tidbit...the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in the US is dealing with medical bills.
Personally I'd wait a few months for my elective surgery than filing for bankruptcy to get it sooner. Like I said, the elite have no issues on either system...it's how the poor are dealt with that really separates the two medical systems.
Again, my friend in Georgia is forced to work to pay for his wife's medical...with nothing left over to get his knee replacement. He's been in this situation for the last 5 years...that's some wait list.
I'm sorry about your friend. You never answered the question whether she's over 65 and eligible for Medicare. Is she?
I do agree that something had to be done with medical care in this country. Before Obamacare, approximately 85% of America had care through their place of employment or privately paid or were on Medicare for the elderly or Medicaid from the state for the poor. It would have been better, simpler and cheaper if they just figured out a way to add people who don't have any insurance and cover preexisting conditions rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater and making a mess of the whole system. That's Obama's and the Democrats fault.
Regarding how people who are getting laid of get medical insurance, that's a great question. This country is broke. We, the people and the government, have over-extended ourselves in debt for years. The bill has just come due and we will suffer. It's our own fault. You can't print your way to prosperity. Your can't borrow your way into wealth. We pissed away our money, didn't save for a rainy day like today, and then when the SHTF, we run around like chickens without heads trying to figure out how to cover all this stuff. Well, you can't. We're in a fix and we're going to suffer, a lot, unfortunately.
Trump is just as guilty as the Democrats. He ran up a trillion dollar deficit before the virus. Now, with the COngress, they're runnin up trillions more printing 'til the cows come home. That's even more debt we have to pay back. I just read that California now has a $54 billion dollar deficit. That's just one state. Where are they getting the money to complete that multi billion high speed railroad line they're building. It's a joke. Well, LaLaLand is in California.
-
As of May 1, approximately 20 states in USA had resumed some elective surgeries, with more states planning to do so it soon. This phased-in approach seems a good and safe way to start clearing the backlog and learn how to deal with the Covid-19 situation challenges.
In Canada, BC and Ontario announced plans to re-open the elective surgeries, but no dates have been announced yet. The offices of the surgeons and specialists are still closed.
It could take up to two years and at least $250 million in extra funding to address the extensive backlog of elective surgeries postponed in B.C. since the peak of its pandemic, the provincial government announced Thursday. Officials said there are 30,000 patients whose surgeries were postponed or not scheduled at all after the province put restrictions on non-urgent surgeries in mid-March. Those patients joined or remained on a pre-existing wait-list, bringing the total number of patients waiting for surgery in B.C. to 93,000.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/elective-surgeries-resuming-in-bc-covid-19-1.5559340
-
Alan, if you have no medical insurance in the US, how do you get that MRI test? The US has 28M people with no medical insurance and most likely growing as people get laid off and losing their insurance. Another tidbit...the number one reason for personal bankruptcy in the US is dealing with medical bills.
If it's an MRI for elective surgery, you're pretty much out of luck. But if it's an MRI for critical surgery -- anything from broken bones to cancer -- you'll get it. You may later lose your house, if you have one, but you'll get it. That's one reason many healthy young people evade the insurance requirement -- they know that if they get hurt, a hospital can't turn them away if the need is critical. If they do get turned away, the hospital will get its shirt sued off, and there are many, many attorneys ready to do that for a cut of the proceeds. A young person with few or no assets may therefore make a fairly logical the decision to evade the insurance requirements, especially given the requirement of the Obamacare law that people can't be turned away for previous existing conditions. Get cancer? Sign up for insurance. No cancer? Evade it. Broken bone? You'lll get treatment, but you'll pay through the nose for it, since that doesn't fall under the "previous existing condition" requirement.
-
There is a recent NPR Fresh Air podcast interview with Nelson D. Schwartz, author of The Velvet Rope (https://www.npr.org/books/titles/833042780/the-velvet-rope-economy-how-inequality-became-big-business (https://www.npr.org/books/titles/833042780/the-velvet-rope-economy-how-inequality-became-big-business)). The book is about all the special perks that the "super"-wealthy can purchase for themselves these days, and they talk about numerous interesting examples, but the one relevant to this thread is the availability of what the author calls "concierge" medical services. If you can afford it, you pay someone a retainer and you can be on a priority list for tests, appointments, etc. The podcast is about an hour long, it was interesting to hear what you can buy if you have the money.
-
There is a recent NPR Fresh Air podcast interview with Nelson D. Schwartz, author of The Velvet Rope (https://www.npr.org/books/titles/833042780/the-velvet-rope-economy-how-inequality-became-big-business (https://www.npr.org/books/titles/833042780/the-velvet-rope-economy-how-inequality-became-big-business)). The book is about all the special perks that the "super"-wealthy can purchase for themselves these days, and they talk about numerous interesting examples, but the one relevant to this thread is the availability of what the author calls "concierge" medical services. If you can afford it, you pay someone a retainer and you can be on a priority list for tests, appointments, etc. The podcast is about an hour long, it was interesting to hear what you can buy if you have the money.
Everyone in America wants to be rich. That's why everyone comes here. Stirring up wealth disparity is an old, socialist trick. It feeds on envy and ends with stealing.
-
There is a recent NPR Fresh Air podcast interview with Nelson D. Schwartz, author of The Velvet Rope (https://www.npr.org/books/titles/833042780/the-velvet-rope-economy-how-inequality-became-big-business (https://www.npr.org/books/titles/833042780/the-velvet-rope-economy-how-inequality-became-big-business)). The book is about all the special perks that the "super"-wealthy can purchase for themselves these days, and they talk about numerous interesting examples, but the one relevant to this thread is the availability of what the author calls "concierge" medical services. If you can afford it, you pay someone a retainer and you can be on a priority list for tests, appointments, etc. The podcast is about an hour long, it was interesting to hear what you can buy if you have the money.
In a medicare for all system, I would see this type of service increasing.
Smart doctors realize you cant make a good amount taking only medicare and medicad patients, especially with student loans that account for 7 to 11 years of training. Plus why spend that much time training to only make an okay living.
Many of those smart doctors will just set up co-opts with other doctors/specialists and take on a list of clientele that would not just be the rich, but would go as far down as the upper middle income. It would become a big market in the USA over night. Most people are not stupid when it comes to this either and would realize that a government run system is going to be inferior to a market run one, and would be happy to pay to become a client of such an operation.
This is not something you could outlaw either, and if they did the Supreme Court would strike it down.
What gets me about all of this is that those who push these liberals policies rarely ever live by them. Hollywood pushes medicare for all but I can guarantee that all those same actors advocating for it would buy into things like this. Just like when actors say it is okay to have a baby out of wedlock and we should not criticize doing so, but yet the elites never do this themselves.
They often push liberal ideals, acting as if there is nothing wrong with them, but in their own personal lives practice all of the conservative ideals, benefitting from them.
-
In a medicare for all system, I would see this type of service increasing.
Smart doctors realize you cant make a good amount taking only medicare and medicad patients, especially with student loans that account for 7 to 11 years of training. Plus why spend that much time training to only make an okay living.
Many of those smart doctors will just set up co-opts with other doctors/specialists and take on a list of clientele that would not just be the rich, but would go as far down as the upper middle income. It would become a big market in the USA over night. Most people are not stupid when it comes to this either and would realize that a government run system is going to be inferior to a market run one, and would be happy to pay to become a client of such an operation.
This is not something you could outlaw either, and if they did the Supreme Court would strike it down.
What gets me about all of this is that those who push these liberals policies rarely ever live by them. Hollywood pushes medicare for all but I can guarantee that all those same actors advocating for it would buy into things like this. Just like when actors say it is okay to have a baby out of wedlock and we should criticize doing so, but yet they elites never do this themselves.
They often push liberal ideals, acting as if there is nothing wrong with them, but in their own personal lives practice all of the conservative ideals, benefitting from them.
My sister when she was alive had concierge service. She was not a rich person by a long shot. She had a small pension and SS and lived in Florida in a 55+ community. It seems to be a lot more prevalent down there maybe because so many oldsters live there.
I recall that was about five years ago that she had concierge service for around $1600 a year. That's out-of-pocket; no reimbursement from Medicare or insurance companies. He was a personable internist who would coordinate other requirements my sister had also acting like an advocate for her. I think he also did some direct services which would be chargeable separately and paid by Medicare. She had cancer the last few years and did a lot of chemo etc. The concierge doctor would coordinate with the hospital and various doctors and make sure everything went smoothly. Otherwise, what happens is you have numerous specialists who don't talk to each other and you have to act as your own advocate with little knowledge and less power. If she had a problem, she'd have the concierge call the other specialists and get info. Doctors talking to doctors work better. They're more accommodating to each other. When the hospital wasn't providing proper services to my sister, I called her concierge and got him to push buttons at the hospital when I couldn't get anywheres. It's like having an attorney on retainer.
-
Everyone in America wants to be rich. That's why everyone comes here. Stirring up wealth disparity is an old, socialist trick. It feeds on envy and ends with stealing.
First off, everyone everywhere wants to be rich. I don't know why you think that's an American phenomenon. That's a bit egocentric.
I mentioned the article/podcast because I thought it was interesting and had not been previously aware of some of what was presented. There was no "socialist" agenda at work, please stop interpreting every posting as an attack that you have to respond to with an on-message response. I am not campaigning against you, this is a discussion forum. As it happens, the writer of that book was making the point, as I understand it, that although the rich are always able to buy more, what is being offered now is unprecedented. Maybe you don't agree with the thesis, that's ok, but without listening to or reading what he said, your opinion of it is not very relevant. I posted the reference as an FYI for everyone, it was not about you.
Moreover, your silly aphorism that reporting on such behaviour ends with stealing is an inane platitude. Unless you want feudalism to come back, that is, but I thought you hated British monarchist rule. :)
Look we get it, you don't like socialism. Wake up, there's no one on these forums, nor most anywhere else on earth, that does anymore. You're fighting imaginary shadows.
-
First off, everyone everywhere wants to be rich. I don't know why you think that's an American phenomenon. That's a bit egocentric.
I mentioned the article/podcast because I thought it was interesting and had not been previously aware of some of what was presented. There was no "socialist" agenda at work, please stop interpreting every posting as an attack that you have to respond to with an on-message response. I am not campaigning against you, this is a discussion forum. As it happens, the writer of that book was making the point, as I understand it, that although the rich are always able to buy more, what is being offered now is unprecedented. Maybe you don't agree with the thesis, that's ok, but without listening to or reading what he said, your opinion of it is not very relevant. I posted the reference as an FYI for everyone, it was not about you.
Moreover, your silly aphorism that reporting on such behaviour ends with stealing is an inane platitude. Unless you want feudalism to come back, that is, but I thought you hated British monarchist rule. :)
Look we get it, you don't like socialism. Wake up, there's no one on these forums, nor most anywhere else on earth, that does anymore. You're fighting imaginary shadows.
No one's immigrating to eastern Europe or Russia. They come to America, still a million legally a year. And more illegally. It was the poor who came here wanting to start over and America gave them the opportunity they didn't have where they came from. Europe and other places were class societies. They still are in many places. You couldn't make it even if you had the brains and moxie to work hard. But America was (is) the land of opportunity where you can make it.
Regarding socialism, it is a big thing here today. Leftists are pushing the income inequality as justification for giant redistribution of wealth. That's socialism. That's looking enviously at others with more and then justifying stealing their money to give to others who have not earn it. I call a spade a spade. Others can stick their heads in the sand.
-
I will add that now there is socialist capitalism on the right where the government redistributes to people and companies who are successful. That's the PPP CARES plan and other giveaway programs of the government to corporations. That's also stealing and redistribution and it's just as wrong.
-
No one's immigrating to eastern Europe or Russia. They come to America, still a million legally a year. And more illegally. It was the poor who came here wanting to start over and America gave them the opportunity they didn't have where they came from. Europe and other places were class societies. They still are in many places. You couldn't make it even if you had the brains and moxie to work hard. But America was (is) the land of opportunity where you can make it.
There is a steady inflow of immigrants coming also to eastern Europe, especially to Czechia and Slovakia.
“The Czech Republic has become a standard destination country for legal immigration during the past twenty years, or so. It is now normal that we process dozens of thousands of legal applications for entry and long-term stay of foreign nationals.”
The vast majority of that increase in population – 26.1 thousand people – is credited to net migration into the country. 43.1 thousand people immigrated into the Czech Republic over the first nine months of 2018 while 17 thousand left the country, resulting in a net migration gain of 26.1 thousand.
During the past three decades, Czechia has quickly transformed from a land of emigration to one of transit migration and currently, rising immigration. Today, it is by far the most attractive destination for migrants in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe. In 2017, just under 5 percent (524,000) of the population of 10.6 million was comprised of legally resident migrants—up from less than 1 percent in 1993. Estimates of the number of unauthorized migrants stretch from 15,000 to 300,000, depending on the forms of irregularity studied.
The capital city, Prague, is home to 37 percent of the country’s migrants, who are also more likely to be found in other big Czech cities and in border areas.
https://news.expats.cz/weekly-czech-news/czech-population-has-increased-by-27700-this-year-largely-due-to-migration/
-
There is a steady inflow of immigrants coming also to eastern Europe, especially to Czechia and Slovakia.
https://news.expats.cz/weekly-czech-news/czech-population-has-increased-by-27700-this-year-largely-due-to-migration/
I'll assume that the same reason America drew people to its shores, the same reason draws immigrants to Czechia and Slovakia:- a chance to do better. Do the people who go there become citizens as in America? Or do they maintain their ties to their pasts? Most people who came to America knew they were giving up all ties to their pasts. America is a long way from Eastern Europe and other places. Especially in days when travel was long and hard. Eastern European immigrants are not, so may be just there for work and will return to their nearby original countries. In any case, people vote with their feet.
-
There is a steady inflow of immigrants coming also to eastern Europe, especially to Czechia and Slovakia.
you mean people from Eastern Eastern Europe moving to Western Eastern Europe :-)... like from ukraine to CZ and Poland
-
The article mentions that 27000 people immigrated to Czechia in one year. That doesn;t sound like a lot. We've got that many illegal gardeners in my community just mowing the lawns. :)
-
No one's immigrating to eastern Europe or Russia.
you are so wrong... latinos or ne... africans don't of course, but people from former xUSSR republics /Central Asia mostly - than ukraine, trans-Caucasians, Belarus, trans-Dniestr/ are coming a lot (not on scale like US has of course).
-
you are so wrong... latinos or ne... africans don't of course, but people from former xUSSR republics are coming a lot (not on scale like US has of course).
No one's denying people don;t move from one area to another. We were discussing how American opportunity has attracted people here for hundreds of years. A virgin land, isolated, remote, unoccupied, uncivilized, a land for the taking. Getting wealthy and having something new. That's what's attracted immigrants here for a long time. Huge opportunity for advancement and for escape from tyranny.
American hasn't been the only place, just the most prominent in the last few hundred years. Because America doesn;t have an established peoples and classes like Europe, newcomers could become successful and part of the power structure. I Europe, if you don;t belong to the culture of the country, it's hard to overcome the prejudice. Of course there's prejudice here too. But we're big enough and diverse enough where people can still make good.
-
you are so wrong... latinos or ne... africans don't of course, but people from former xUSSR republics /Central Asia mostly - than ukraine, trans-Caucasians, Belarus, trans-Dniestr/ are coming a lot (not on scale like US has of course).
Yes, that's the general tendency, but Prague attracts also many West Europeans and even Americans. A friend of mine who moved after his retirement with his wife and grown-up daughter from Virginia to the central mountain area in Mexico and has lived there for several years now, visited recently Prague and now they plan to move there.
-
The article mentions that 27000 people immigrated to Czechia in one year. That doesn;t sound like a lot. We've got that many illegal gardeners in my community just mowing the lawns. :)
Czechia is a small country, with only 10M population vs 328 in USA. But they drink more beer per capita than any other country in the world. In the restaurants there, great beer is cheaper than bottled water. It must be also mentioned that beer is healthier than milk. As to its effect on Covid-19, consuming beer will not destroy the virus, but it is much less harmful than drinking disinfectants.
Beer has been shown to help keep bones from going brittle, among other health benefits. According to Harvard Medical School, more than 100 prospective studies show that moderate alcohol consumption can lower the risk of heart attack, strokes caused by clotting, and death from all cardiovascular causes. In addition, moderate drinking may help prevent gallstones and type 2 diabetes.
https://www.peta.org/blog/got-beer-ad-madison-wisconsin/
-
Czechia is a small country, with only 10M population vs 328 in USA. But they drink more beer per capita than any other country in the world. In the restaurants there, great beer is cheaper than bottled water. It must be also mentioned that beer is healthier than milk. As to its effect on Covid-19, consuming beer will not destroy the virus, but it is much less harmful than drinking disinfectants.
https://www.peta.org/blog/got-beer-ad-madison-wisconsin/
Beer also tastes better than Lysol.
-
It must be also mentioned that beer is healthier than milk.
What utter drivel.
Jeremy
-
What utter drivel.
Jeremy
Of course beer is better than milk. Ask any alcoholic.
-
Of course beer is better than milk. Ask any alcoholic.
It really depends on the consumed amount.
Half the doctors will recommend the former and the other half the latter. In other words, half the patients will die prematurely.
By the way, why do they have more C19 deaths in Spain and Italy than in northern states? Because they are more health conscious and drink more wine or cook with more olive oil?
-
It really depends on the consumed amount.
Half the doctors will recommend the former and the other half the latter. In other words, half the patients will die prematurely.
By the way, why do they have more C19 deaths in Spain and Italy than in northern states? Because they are more health conscious and drink more wine or cook with more olive oil?
Did you ever see a German kiss their friend publicly? :)
-
It seems that our New Jersey town is now having it's second low period in cases; the last around April 17th . Yesterday there were 6 cases, 5 in assisted living homes and 1 in the general population.
-
It seems that our New Jersey town is now having it's second low period in cases; the last around April 17th . Yesterday there were 6 cases, 5 in assisted living homes and 1 in the general population.
The weekend data is always suspect and catches up on Monday / Tuesday.
-
The weekend data is always suspect and catches up on Monday / Tuesday.
But the trend seems downwards regardless if you take off the spikes. Of course most people are still hiding out. It's going to be interesting once they come out again. The NJ governor extended the shutdown for another 30 days. Is he just putting off the inevitable? I can't get Sweden out of my head.
-
There is a recent NPR Fresh Air podcast interview with Nelson D. Schwartz, author of The Velvet Rope (https://www.npr.org/books/titles/833042780/the-velvet-rope-economy-how-inequality-became-big-business (https://www.npr.org/books/titles/833042780/the-velvet-rope-economy-how-inequality-became-big-business)). The book is about all the special perks that the "super"-wealthy can purchase for themselves these days, and they talk about numerous interesting examples, but the one relevant to this thread is the availability of what the author calls "concierge" medical services. If you can afford it, you pay someone a retainer and you can be on a priority list for tests, appointments, etc. The podcast is about an hour long, it was interesting to hear what you can buy if you have the money.
Regarding "concierge" medical care, my wife and both have it thru Duke. It costs $2500/year. That cost is hardly limited to the "super wealthy." Of course many folks can't afford it, but that's true of many things in this life. I don't expect society to provide concierge care to everyone, but everyone should have decent and competent care. And if that takes single-payer or Medicare for All, so be it.
-
Regarding "concierge" medical care, my wife and both have it thru Duke. It costs $2500/year. That cost is hardly limited to the "super wealthy." Of course many folks can't afford it, but that's true of many things in this life. I don't expect society to provide concierge care to everyone, but everyone should have decent and competent care. And if that takes single-payer or Medicare for All, so be it.
I was repeating what the interviewee said, but I don't really understand what that concierge service might be. If you go see a GP for some ailment that needs further work by more specialized people, doesn't your GP just refer you? What exactly is the value-added of a concierge?
In the case of the uber-rich from the story, if I remember right, it's that by paying the money one could bypass the usual queue and be seen by someone more quickly, and also, in the rich patient case, have a stable of specialists all over the country to choose from. I hope I'm remembering the program accurately.
This implies to me that the better the concierge (bigger the kickback to the doctor that is) then the higher chances of avoiding the queue. Is this system transparent? Do you know beforehand that a $2500 per year concierge can get you in within a week but a $5000 per year concierge can get you in the next day? I am asking that cynically because I can easily see something like that happening, but I'm also serious in wondering how it is all managed. If your appointment is postponed, are you told it's because the doctor got a better offer?
-
BTW, does anybody know about the stem cell therapy for hips and knees as an alternative to surgeries? Apparently, this treatment has been used for a while in USA, but not in many other countries.
Since it is a non-invasive procedure and simpler than the orthopedic surgery, such an option could drastically reduce the backlog for the postponed surgeries due to Covid-19 hospital lockdowns.
-
I was repeating what the interviewee said, but I don't really understand what that concierge service might be. If you go see a GP for some ailment that needs further work by more specialized people, doesn't your GP just refer you? What exactly is the value-added of a concierge?
In the case of the uber-rich from the story, if I remember right, it's that by paying the money one could bypass the usual queue and be seen by someone more quickly, and also, in the rich patient case, have a stable of specialists all over the country to choose from. I hope I'm remembering the program accurately.
This implies to me that the better the concierge (bigger the kickback to the doctor that is) then the higher chances of avoiding the queue. Is this system transparent? Do you know beforehand that a $2500 per year concierge can get you in within a week but a $5000 per year concierge can get you in the next day? I am asking that cynically because I can easily see something like that happening, but I'm also serious in wondering how it is all managed. If your appointment is postponed, are you told it's because the doctor got a better offer?
I am somewhat familiar with a concierge medical service. The basic cost (subscription) is $6,000 a year, plus there is a charge per appointment, depending on what is done. (I think they do take insurance and Medicare.) I don't know how many people are enrolled in the service, but I would imagine it's a few hundred -- the doctors (there are two of them) have a limit on how many people they see. They also employ a nurse practitioner who can take care of a lot of routine stuff like shots. If you are actually ill, you can get in same-day, never a problem. If you need routine care, always the same week, often same-day or next-day. Things like physical exams are scheduled. If you need specialist care, you're referred -- but specialists (outside those who operate within a larger clinic or hospital) really operate a kind of concierge service as well. If you're referred, you can usually get in within a couple of days.
I have a friend who subscribes, and he has suggested that I join, and I'm thinking about it. I currently go to a clinic, where I like the doc and his employees, but the waiting room drives me crazy -- I'm old, and the waiting room is always full of school kids with every disease imaginable, plus a lot of sneezing adults. I'm sort of afraid to sit down, and I'd never pick up one of the magazines. Waits can be an hour or more past your appointment time. I'm healthy, hardly ever go to a doctor, but I wanted to resume scuba diving last year, after a long layoff, and I couldn't take the refresher course without getting a doctor's permission. To get that (what amounted to an interview and light physical exam) I had to wait more than a month, because I had no really urgent medical problem.
One of the problems with Medicare is that it drives down prices to save money, but that means that a lot of the clinics are shabby, over-crowded, etc. I also suspect (and I may be totally wrong) that the most qualified docs go into specialties, and the family-style doctors are possibly not the sharpest knives in the dishwasher. My doc is almost as old as I am, and came from old style medicine, where the doctors made a lot of money and things were less pressured. No longer the case. The fact is, we're well into baby-boom old age, and the medical facilities are jammed up with Medicare patients (like me.)
-
Medicare is saving money on all those old people accidents.
New York City breaks record: 58 straight days with no pedestrian deaths
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/gix1oa/new_york_city_breaks_record_58_straight_days_with/
-
I am somewhat familiar with a concierge medical service. The basic cost (subscription) is $6,000 a year, plus there is a charge per appointment, depending on what is done. (I think they do take insurance and Medicare.)
Medicare does not cover the concierge fee but can cover office visits, lab fees, etc. When I last looked at this in our area, the yearly fee was $3000. My long time internist was switching over to this type of practice and I decided to leave. We have several friends who are in these practices and they like it.
One of the problems with Medicare is that it drives down prices to save money, but that means that a lot of the clinics are shabby, over-crowded, etc. I also suspect (and I may be totally wrong) that the most qualified docs go into specialties, and the family-style doctors are possibly not the sharpest knives in the dishwasher. My doc is almost as old as I am, and came from old style medicine, where the doctors made a lot of money and things were less pressured. No longer the case. The fact is, we're well into baby-boom old age, and the medical facilities are jammed up with Medicare patients (like me.)
It depends on where you live. All of the doctors I have had over the years have exceptional training. At one point, five of them had done research fellowships here at NIH and decided that medical research was not their cup of tea and went into private practice. It's the same with waiting times and facilities. The big issue here is Johns Hopkins has bought two of the bigger hospitals and established physician practices. The restrict which doctors have privileges at the hospital. This is not unique as Sutter is doing the same thing in Northern California.
-
Medicare does not cover the concierge fee but can cover office visits, lab fees, etc. When I last looked at this in our area, the yearly fee was $3000. My long time internist was switching over to this type of practice and I decided to leave. We have several friends who are in these practices and they like it.
It depends on where you live. All of the doctors I have had over the years have exceptional training. At one point, five of them had done research fellowships here at NIH and decided that medical research was not their cup of tea and went into private practice. It's the same with waiting times and facilities. The big issue here is Johns Hopkins has bought two of the bigger hospitals and established physician practices. The restrict which doctors have privileges at the hospital. This is not unique as Sutter is doing the same thing in Northern California.
That's common all over where there are a lot of hospitals. When I moved to NJ from NY, I picked an internist that's affiliated with the larger teaching hospital. Teaching hospitals tend to be better. They stay at the new frontiers of medicine and have really top notch specialists. So just in case I need a hospital, my internist can get me in. However, I kept my cardiologist in NYC affiliated with Columbia Presbyterian, one of the top heart hospitals in the country. It was there I had my heart surgery and was admitted the same day my cardiologist was concerned who then got me the surgeon he wanted. His office is in the hospital one floor away from the heart wing floor. Otherwise, you're kind of at the mercy of plain luck and could wind up with a crappy doctor at a crappy hospital.
-
I was repeating what the interviewee said, but I don't really understand what that concierge service might be. If you go see a GP for some ailment that needs further work by more specialized people, doesn't your GP just refer you? What exactly is the value-added of a concierge?
I can relate only my own experience. With concierge care, your PCP will spend as much time with you as needed and not be rushed off in 15 min to the next appointment. When I first signed on, my doc spent a whole hour examining me and talking with me. An hour!! Also I can message or call her at anytime and will get an answer quickly. When I go for appointments I almost never have to wait more than a few minutes. And you get appointments fast.
-
I can relate only my own experience. With concierge care, your PCP will spend as much time with you as needed and not be rushed off in 15 min to the next appointment. When I first signed on, my doc spent a whole hour examining me and talking with me. An hour!! Also I can message or call her at anytime and will get an answer quickly. When I go for appointments I almost never have to wait more than a few minutes. And you get appointments fast.
Peter, Could you get him to get you masks, alcohol, virus tests, and other virus related stuff easier than a regular internist?
-
I can relate only my own experience. With concierge care, your PCP will spend as much time with you as needed and not be rushed off in 15 min to the next appointment. When I first signed on, my doc spent a whole hour examining me and talking with me. An hour!! Also I can message or call her at anytime and will get an answer quickly. When I go for appointments I almost never have to wait more than a few minutes. And you get appointments fast.
I have a great relationship with my doctor. Appointments go on much longer than scheduled as we get into talking hockey which both of us are right into. We have BBQ's with my doctor ( my place and his ) throughout the summer and meet in the local pub for a cool one when the urge hits. I don't pay a dime for his service.
-
Peter, Could you get him to get you masks, alcohol, virus tests, and other virus related stuff easier than a regular internist?
FWIW it's a "her." I really don't know the answer to your question because I never asked. The missus made masks for us and some friends, we had enough hand sanitizer on hand, we have no urgent need for tests given our circumstances. I don't know what other virus-related things we might need.
-
But what happens when medical insurance has to start paying out for expected events, like the corona virus. Most people get through the virus without needing hospitalizations,
Insurance underwriters are already removing pandemics from what they cover. Next year you won't be able to buy insurance that gives you protection from loss of income due to a pandemic.
For health insurance, who knows how that will play out. Maybe you won't be able to buy medical insurance if you have refused to be vaccinated.